INMIGRATION TYRANNY

Jacob G. Hornberger, July 20, 2007

A popular argument among advocates of immigration controls is that a nation has a “right” to control its borders. The argument is based on the supposed “right” of the U.S. government to station gendarmes along its international borders, including on privately owned land, to prevent people from coming into the country illegally.

What the advocates of control never address, however, is a related situation: If the government has the “right” to prevent people from coming into the country, why doesn’t it have the correlative “right” to prevent people from leaving the country? Doesn’t control over the borders connote control in both directions?

In fact, isn’t that the true rationale for prohibiting Americans, on pain of fine and imprisonment, from traveling to Cuba? While the feds actually prohibit Americans from spending dollars in Cuba, we all know that that’s simply a sham to cover up what they are actually doing — preventing Americans from traveling from the United States to Cuba. If the federal government has the power to prevent Americans from traveling to Cuba, doesn’t it have the power to prevent Americans from traveling everywhere else? Isn’t this what comes with the government’s “right” to control its borders?

That, of course, brings us to the Berlin Wall, a border control that seems to make American proponents of immigration controls uncomfortable.

One of the principal arguments that advocates of immigration controls make is, “The law is the law and people should obey the law.” Under East German law, it was a criminal act to cross the border into West Berlin without permission from East German officials. Even if people disagreed with the law, the East German authorities expected everyone to obey it. After all, they believed, “The law is the law and people should obey the law.”

Once American immigration-control proponents accept that principle as immutable, it would seem that they have no choice but to defend East Germany’s enforcement of its law. Yet most American immigration controllers would never do that, at least not publicly. To defend the shooting of East Germans illegally crossing into West Berlin is not exactly a popular position. Once the advocates of immigration controls take the position that the East German law was immoral and, therefore, that it was morally okay for East Germans to violate it, an important principle emerges: People have a fundamental and inherent right to disobey an immoral law.

If a law that prevents people from leaving a country is immoral, then why isn’t a law that prevents people from entering a country equally immoral? Suppose West Berlin had constructed its own wall that ran parallel to the East Berlin wall. Would advocates of immigration controls have condemned the killing of an East German for illegally crossing the East German wall and praised his killing for illegally crossing the West German wall?

The immigration controllers often use collectivist rhetoric to justify immigration controls. They say that “we” have a right to keep people from “breaking into” our national “home” and trespassing on farms and ranches along the border.

But the only reason that immigrants are illegally hiking across people’s farms and ranches when they enter the United States is that it’s illegal for them to travel normally by bus or car. Moreover, America isn’t Cuba or North Korea, where the government owns the nation and everything and everybody within the nation. Instead, America includes a myriad of private properties, homes, and businesses owned and operated by millions of private individuals and companies. It’s obvious that the millions of immigrants who have crossed the U.S. border illegally have found their way into these private residences and businesses with the consent of the owners. When the controllers call on U.S. officials to “lock” our national door, what they really want to do is empower federal officials to lock the doors of millions of private homes and businesses without the consent of the owners.

The ultimate issue in the immigration debate is a moral one: Are freedom to move, freedom to associate, freedom of contract, and private ownership fundamental, inherent rights or not? If so, then the federal government has no legitimate authority to interfere with them. If not, then the immigration controllers have the burden of showing how their position conflicts, in principle, with that of the East Germans, Cubans, and, for that matter, the North Koreans, who, not surprisingly, tightly control the movements of people into and out of their nation.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

TULSA GOES TO MEXICO

Tulsa businesses aid in moving money to Mexico

Immigrants in the United States, legally and illegally, sent more than $20 billion to Mexico last year, international data show.

Some of that money was transferred through dozens of agencies around Tulsa. Throughout the city, but concentrated on the east side, are restaurants, markets, jewelry repair shops and other businesses that advertise “Envios de dinero (Send money).”

Most remittances — payments sent by immigrants to their native countries — go to relatives in their former hometowns, where wages are lower and work is less plentiful.

Critics charge that remittances are one negative result of illegal immigration, one that steals money away from the U.S. economy.

Last year, $226 million was sent from Oklahoma to Latin American and Caribbean countries, up 45 percent from $156 million in 2004, according to the Multilateral Investment Fund, which promotes economic growth in those countries.

The fund also reported that about $23 billion in remittances was sent just to Mexico from the United States.

By contrast, the U.S. gross domestic product is more than $13 trillion, as calculated by the U.S.
Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The Federal Reserve System is trying to land a greater share of what it calls the “rapidly growing U.S.-to-Mexico remittance market” for U.S. banks and credit unions with its program Directo a Mexico.

The program, a joint effort between the Federal Reserve and Banco de Mexico, is a relatively cheaper way to wire money between the two countries.

Only a sliver of remittances are handled by local banks and credit unions, however. Roughly 95 percent are conducted by private wire-transfer companies, such as Western Union and Intermex Wire Transfer LLC. Local businesses become agents of these companies in order to provide money-transfer services.

Dudley Gilbert, the legal counsel of the Oklahoma Banking Department, said about 1,500 money-transfer agents are scattered across the state. The department does not track how much money is sent out of the state or where it goes.

However, the department did just approve licensing requirements for these agents, he said, adding that the rules will go into effect in August.

Money from Tulsa

Two Tulsa convenience stores, operating under the name Perez’s Abarrotes Panaderia, transfer between $80,000 to $100,000 a week. The bulk of that business takes place at the store near 21st Street and Garnett Road, where many Hispanics live, work and shop.

The stores’ owner, Wilson Perez, said most of the money goes to Mexico.

“People come in religiously every week,” Perez said, standing behind the counter of his small store, which sells everything from jewelry to baked goods.

The average customer transfers between $400 and $500 every week, he said.

Gilbert said state law does not require identification for transfers of less than $1,000. For amounts greater than that, the U.S. Patriot Act requires the business to report at least the customer’s name, date of birth, street address and taxpayer identification, the Federal Reserve said.

None of this information verifies that the customer is in the country legally, however. This concerns some conservatives who hope to drive out illegal immigrants by limiting their access to services.

Directo a Mexico has been criticized because it doesn’t require legal presence in the United States for a transaction. However, it does follow federal law on money transfers, said Jean Tate, a spokeswoman for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

A California lawmaker has accused the program of “profiteering from illegal immigration.”

A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Carl Rusnok, said the agency “would not likely target money transfers to find illegal aliens, but instead to identify, investigate and prosecute criminal activity.”

The immigration debate

Remittances are a talking point regarding the cost of illegal immigration, which is relatively elusive but a key argument in the debate on immigration reform. Some lawmakers have said illegal immigration costs Oklahoma at least $200 million a year.

Some critics are enraged that illegal immigrants can receive limited public services — such as emergency medical care and free education from kindergarten through high school — yet send money they earn in the U.S. to other countries and not the local economy.

“The fact that the money is going to help someone else in another country seems very short-sighted to me,” said Carol Helm, the director of Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now.

“That’s not the American dream people work for. They work for what they have here and pay their own way.”

Scott Carter, an associate professor of economics at the University of Tulsa, said that immigrants sending money home is no different than U.S. citizens putting cash into retirement funds and savings accounts instead of investing it.

“To scapegoat the immigrants and say they are working and saving their money just to send it back to Mexico is wrong. It’s just wrong,” he said.

What people overlook, he said, is the great contribution that immigrants make to the local economy in the way of job productivity and purchases.

“All of that activity has a direct impact on the domestic product in the state and the country,” he said.

It’s a business

Tate of the Federal Reserve said about 170 U.S. institutions have signed on to Directo a Mexico. She listed only one participating institution in the Tulsa area, OK Members First Federal Credit Union.

The credit union’s director of member services, Debra Nicholas, said one woman sends $100 every other week to Mexico through the service, but she’s it, despite the credit union’s cheaper fees and bilingual services.

“Since we were in this area (near 31st Street and Garnett Road) with a large number of Hispanic people, we thought we could probably serve them, but it really hasn’t panned out well,” she said.

That’s not the case with some private wire-transfer companies, however.

Western Union handed 147 million consumer-to-consumer money transfers worldwide last year, the company said by e-mail. It did not give dollar amounts. Western Union operates in eight of the 10 largest supermarket chains in the United States.

Intermex Wire Transfers has about 4,000 agencies across the country, including 15 in the Tulsa area, that facilitate the transfer of millions of dollars out of the country, said Randy Ostler, the company’s chief information officer.